The next Wintel: Android plus NVIDIA

Microsoft and Intel won't be the same powerhouses in mobile that they were in PCs. The new leaders of the computing world will be Google Android and NVIDIA. Learn why.

Microsoft and Intel have dominated the past three decades of the personal computing revolution. And, while both companies are doing just fine financially as more and more people across the globe get their hands on computers, the Wintel alliance (Microsoft Windows on Intel x86 chips) is about to move from the driver's seat to the back seat in the technology world.

Mobile computing is about to zoom past the PC ecosystem, and despite efforts by both Intel and Microsoft to adapt to the mobile world, neither of the two is poised for the same kind of success in mobile that they've experienced in PCs.

While you could argue that this change has already been happening for a couple years, 2011 will likely be the turning point. Here are four reasons why:

People are spending a larger chunk of their computing time on their smartphones as these devices take on greater capabilities with more computing power and more applications

Multitouch tablets are about to explode in 2011 by bringing computing to new demographics (children, elderly, and people afraid of computers) and new usage scenarios (field workers, conference room professionals, and more) with their simplicity and portability

Smartphones will start to replace some PCs in 2011 with products like the Motorola Atrix 4G that are powered by dual core processors and can dock and function like full PCs (look for this trend to gain a lot more steam in 2012)

In the developing world, mobile devices are the primary PCs and Web devices because they are much easier to get into the hands of average citizens and much easier to connect to the Internet (it's a lot more cost effective to put up cell towers than to lay a bunch of copper or fiber lines)

So, if Microsoft Windows and Intel chips are moving to the back seat, which companies are moving up front? It would be easy to argue for Apple. After all, the company has shifted its entire strategy to focus on mobility, from laptops to tablets to smartphones to portable media devices, and in 2010 it passed Microsoft to become the world's largest tech company. However, Apple's strict focus on vertical integration generates lots of profits and great products, but limits its role as a partner in the larger tech ecosystem and ultimately limits its market share potential as well. Apple is an island -- a very lush, idyllic island, but an island nonetheless.

The leaders of the next era in computing will very likely be Google Android and NVIDIA.

Android isn't without its challenges -- lack of OS standardization is fragmenting the experience for users and the software itself suffers from the same kind of gradual "bit rot" that plagues Windows. Nevertheless, Android is proving itself to be as adaptable for mobile devices as Windows (and DOS before it) was for PCs and that's why all of the major mobile OEMs are rallying behind it.

On the hardware side, it's interesting that NVIDIA is the company edging forward into the pole position. Previously known for its high-end graphics chips for PCs, NVIDIA made a big bet on mobile processors in recent years and looks poised to reap huge benefits from it by leapfrogging past mobile chipmakers like Qualcomm and Texas Instruments.

NVIDIA took its knowledge designing GPUs for PCs and channeled it into building mobile CPUs with excellent overall speed, strong graphics, and a low power footprint. Its NVIDIA Tegra processor first showed off impressive performance in the Microsoft Zune HD. And, it's dual core Tegra 2 was everywhere at CES 2011 as tech companies unveiled their big products for the year. The dual core Tegra 2 was featured in nearly all of the hottest smartphones and tablets announced at CES.

Also at CES, NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said, "We need a device that brings the portability and mobility of the smartphone, but the power and performance of the PC."

At the company's CES press conference, it was easy to tell that NVIDIA sees itself as a company that has the tiger by the tail. Huang radiated confidence and tossed out hyperboles like "This is the beginning of a new era" and "There's a mobile computing revolution underway" and "The magnitude of this change is still being internalized by us all" and "I think we're going to look back on this particular CES as when things changed."

Here are a couple of the slides that NVIDIA trotted out to CES 2011 to show why the company is so excited:

NVIDIA also has its Tegra 3 processor on the way later this year, and at CES the company announced "Project Denver" (a codename), which is a high performance ARM core that NVIDIA and ARM are designing together in order to power laptops, desktop, servers, and supercomputers. This is a company that is hitting on all cylinders

Final thoughts

Keep in mind that the mobile ecosystem is going to have a lot more diversity than the PC ecosystem ever did. We won't see a platform dominate with 80%-90% market share the way Microsoft Windows and Intel chips did in the PC market.

In mobile, there will be plenty of room for Apple to snatch up lots of market share with its vertical integration, BlackBerry will remain an important niche platform for high-security businesses, and Nokia, Microsoft, and others will continue to fight on and try to grab a sliver of the market. On the hardware side, Qualcomm and Texas Instruments won't go down without a fight and the two of them will remain important players in the mobile ecosystem.

Still, the top dogs in mobile are going to be Android and NVIDIA, and the way things are going in the computing world, these two will no longer be limited to just hand-held devices but will soon start honing in on some native Wintel territory as well.

About Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He writes about the people, products, and ideas changing how we live and work in the 21st century. He's co-author of the upcoming book, Follow the Geeks.

Full Bio

Jason Hiner is Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He writes about the people, products, and ideas changing how we live and work in the 21st century. He's co-author of the upcoming book, Follow the Geeks.

Microsoft and Intel would respond to the above blog with:
"Reports of my death have been highly exaggerated."
This line: "in 2010 it passed Microsoft to become the world???s largest tech company", relating to Apple becoming the largest tech company is simply false.
Apple did take over the top spot when it comes to "market capitalization", but that's not the same as being the largest technology company. That would still be Microsoft, by a long shot with it's many products and services, and with its reach into every type of service and every type of product and every type of software. Apple can't even come close.
Now, when it comes to Microsoft and Intel being left behind in the new mobile marketplace, well, those 2 companies are already gearing up to compete effectively, and the author of the piece above is being hyperbolic about the new tech revolution leaving those 2 giants behind. Intel is already developing for the mobile market and Microsoft has already entered that market, and in fact, has some very good competition against it's rivals in that mobile space. The mobile marketplace is basically still in its infancy, and to already declare who the winners and losers are is to be less than honest or very nearsighted.
In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.

Windows 8 is supposed to run on ARM processors, opening Windows up to the portable market in a way never before seen. Add to that Windows Phone 7's support for Xbox integration and you suddenly have a powerhouse OS and a remarkable gaming system rolled into one. Granted, it all depends on how the next version of Windows and Windows Phone converge and grow, but MS has pulled a rabbit out of its hat a few times to maintain market dominance.

The new mobil devices are becoming the terminals and the cloud is becoming the mainframe. If standards remain open it will not matter which OS is on either end and consumers don't care as long as it does what they want. This may give rise to many different choices in devices and software. Time will tell...

As users (have) become adept at using the Android O/S from the phone, they'll begin to see the business dynamics of open systems and the inherent economies of scale. So what does that mean? Tablets are not just the next big thing, users want portability. Users want easy. Users want connectivity without bloatware. Users want to be updated with viable software that's secure. If you can honestly tell me Intel and Windows are fleet of foot in producing these dynamics - you're not aware of what Android is and will become. The majority of users don't need to process millions of rows of data, they want to make decisions on aggregate answers - which can be assimilated from a central resource (cloud). Need to make a presentation from your tablet or the cloud? Xoom will let you do that with it's connectivity. All I can say is I'm embracing what's coming with a leap. It's a safe leap, an exciting leap and it's the future. It's very exciting to be on the side of defining business options while bringing forward an exciting new infrastructure that meets the future. Enjoy!

Going from a mass of content creators to a mass of content consumers is the natural path of a medium.
For a moment, let's examine the story of the invention of the landline telephone. The landline telephone switchboard was an open standard that allowed telephone networks to interconnect in 1894. More than 6,000 independent phone companies sprouted up and people were even building their own phones. Flash forward to 2011. No one builds their own phones from scratch anymore and most areas have only one carrier that services a specific geographical location. In the landline telephone medium, the population at large have gone from being content creators (small, individual companies and people building their own phones) to content consumers entirely dependent on the telephone companies.
The story of computers is no different. Fewer and fewer people will produce content, but more and more will consume on tablets and smartphones. It's the natural path of an industrial revolution. A technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand flowers bloom, and then through user apathy and corporate capitalism, someone finds a way to own it, turning people into merely content consumers.

The following would all need to happen, but I also believe most of it is likely to happen (with variable likeliness):
1. Honeycomb is a big hit and opens up the way for more and more desktop-like Android apps
2. Android becomes dominant mobile platform
3. Google gives up on ChromeOS and focuses all that manpower to Android.
4. Android x86 port gets some backing from the industry (Intel?)
5. Android gets better and better support for native apps
6. Major Linux desktop apps are getting ported
Analogy: this is somewhat how Windows "spread" to server market. Big success of it as a desktop solution created a demand for their server software. Meanwhile MS itself figured that it wanted to spread into that market.

I am not sure if Android and NVIDIA are going to really dominate the market. Android based products are challenging and still have many performance issues. Most users do not want the frustrations that comes from products that lockup or don't perform well. If a product requires modifications (rooting) to get the best performance most people don't want to deal with the risk or the process behind it. There is a reason why Apple is dominating with their mobile products. They make products that are reliable, perform well, and are user friendly. Tech companies must keep the users in mind during development and limit the end frustration.

Games on a mobile device? I doubt it. Serious gaming geeks have huge systems to handle cooling the processors required to keep the graphics as awesome as the developers intended. Sure, Angry Birds and its ilk are fine for passing time on your commute, but serious gaming? Until there are some serious advances is graphics processors, I don't see it happening.

It'll be interesting to see how this affects Linux as we know it. It's already fairly platform-agnostic. The type of development necessary to properly support the hardware (i.e., drivers) and user interface are exactly what PC Linux needs anyway. If this development ends up open-source, Linux may actually have their long-awaited "Year of the Linux Desktop".
I also hope Apple doesn't give up on MacOS.

ARM has a number of licensees, including Qualcomm and TI. What about AMD partnering with at least one of them? This also assumes the Imagination Technologies, developer of the PowerVR chips cannot play at NVIDIA's level. This is the first good implementation of a dual core based mobile device. It is far from the last.
Moreover, what about quad core mobile device chips down the road? Look how fast the desktop/notebook markets have moved into quad core chips.

I only know a handful of people that have smartphones and only a few of them actually use the functionality beyond the occasional foray on the web. This topic would be considered "crazy talk". (BTW, I work in a software development shop, so geeks abound.)

As a consultant who supports technology users, I agree. 80% or more of the users out there do not create content other than a document or spreadsheet now and then or a slide show. Mostly they surf the web, check email, and look at media (photos, video, etc). The convenience of holding a device in your hand and getting their content is what they want. Those of use who create content will always need something much more robust, but I use mobile devices to consume content too.

Agree, the world will always need a platform for creation and authoring. But what % systems is that versus the population who just consume content? I'd argue 10-20% of the total population that has PC's or workstations need them today. Everyone else is mostly a consumer (game player, shopper, email reader, texter, power-point displayer, spreadsheet referencer), and that can easily be done on a hand-held device.

The world is changing, and NVDA has had the vision to see what was coming for some time. Traditional handheld SoC providers (QCOM, TXN) don't have the perspective, product pulse or differentiable technology to compete over the long haul. Intel, the traditional key PC leader, is carrying too much legacy around; x86 will shoe-horn into only so many form-factors before new platforms are no longer possible. CES 2011 witnessed a sea change. I'm sure there are lots of doubters, even with good arguments against this happening, but the truth is NVDA has been planning of this moment for a decade, and CEO Jen-Hsun Huang is too competitive and determined to fail. (Project Denver, where they are going after Intel, is a whole other topic.)

It will be interesting to see how Android moving up and Wintel moving down plays out.
Computing is, well, will be, inside everything. So for me the more interesting battle is between the silos and the platforms. One silo/platform is Apple which assumes the know the purpose of the devices. The other, as I note in http://rmf.vc/CES2011.trc, is between the device/appliance markers who struggling to keep the value contained within their products with "smart" TVs and other appliances.

while I teach you the meaning of words. Let's start with the subject line "The blog is some pretty bad reporting..." You clearly say "the blog" not "this post". This looks like a direct attack upon the writer himself and all of his work here.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world." This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog. You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
You just spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
What a jerk.

Microsoft has proven over and over for the past few years they have passed their time as an innovative and creative tech company. I did a project with a group from Microsoft and talk about work pressure. I could only describe as a silicon sweat shop. Then there is a huge off-shoring initiative resulting in cheap labor, but little new, so no I don't have any expectations that Microsoft will continue to do anything but dominate certain markets, but slowly fade away.

Did you write this from your iPhone? Oh, the sweet irony. I would certainly agree that Apple is not the leader of much beyond MP3 Players. Certainly not the world's largest "tech company", whatever that means.
However I disagree with your speculation upon this speculative article. These are all just opinions. Are you going to purchase a Windows mobile device? After writing this glowing praise I sure hope you do. I won't. I won't buy in to Apple either. I think that the strong combonation of NVIDIA and Android is a superior solution. The best do not always win but it's not absurd to bet on the best. Most professionals I know have an Android, some have the iPhone. I can't see M$ Windows phone 7 getting better sales numbers than either of these. M$ phones have had notably poor sales in the past. I doubt this will change.
Whatever happened to TREO? They used to outsell M$ phones every day.

Never trust the cloud. They already taught an AI to lie. It's only a matter of time. I prefer a slingbox model where I have a mainframe at my house and my mobile device could then be a terminal of my PC. That way I still own my content. I have control of what OS is on both ends. Hopefully I will be able to keep my data away from the Terminators.

Android has a Linux kernel, but it is extremely paired down and essentially is there to run Java. All Android apps are Java, which does not make for a great desktop OS. If Google wants to compete in the desktop marketplace they need to keep plugging away on ChromeOS. And I hope they do, I use Windows because there is nothing better fo rmy needs, but every year I give the new flavors of Linux a try, hoping for the one that will steal my heart.

I agree, to truly have the best experience you need a dedicated system. But the games being played today on a handheld are similar to best of class PC games a few years ago. Tegra2 is being compared to game consoles here in this Utube vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpGtu_ZkwqA That's a tegra2 hand held device running the game and being output to the auditorium display at CES in Jan. That gaming experience doesn't suck.

There really is not much competition here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/what_is_cuda_new.html
We are not talking about 10% performance increases. This platform has actualized up to 1800% performance gains on math heavy applications.
Remember the math co-processor on the old 386? Yeah those are now standard on every desktop computer. You never see it. It's on die with the CPU. I would say that this is a similar advancement.

But the mobile devices have been slow to adopt the simplest of things like Flash and Silverlight. I'd like to believe in the revolution as my "elderly" parents would be far better off with a phone that plugged into a monitor than a full blown PC, but the reality is neither would be able to do their job (i.e. my mom uses a Silverlight application to fill in her hours for work).

I didn't realize you wanted me to hold your hand
First off, I'm pretty sure you're not my type.
Secondly, if anybody here needs to have his hand held, it would be you, because, you sound like you still have a lot of growing up to do.
while I teach you the meaning of words.
Such arrogance, coming from someone who apparently is still a long way from understanding that, nobody is infallible, and that a blogger is not a God, and that a blogger can be just as clueless as anybody out there, and that a blogger can be very biased, and that bloggers oftentimes get paid to present certain points of view. It's quite apparent that the one needing a lot of life-lessons is you.
Let's start with the subject line "The blog is some pretty bad reporting..." You clearly say "the blog" not "this post". This looks like a direct attack upon the writer himself and all of his work here.
And, I stand by what I said!
By blog, I meant the particular report/article to which I was replying, and, since the article was written by a "blogger", then, of course, I was pointing directly at the author of the piece. You don't have to do a scientific analysis of what I said. It's very clear what I said. That you need to go into breaking it down just goes to show that it's you that's having a hard time understanding what others say.
Then at the end of your rant you close with "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
I've been in the tech field for a very long time, and one thing I know is that, when it comes to predictions, they often turn out to be wrong. Thus, I'm saying the bloggers predictions are nothing more than wishful thinking based on a huge lack of analysis about the history of technology. Predicting the the direction of technology a few years in the future is like predicting the weather 2 years in advance for a particular day of that year. Those kind of predictions are almost guaranteed to be wrong.
This is not only slanderous but it is also just the opinion of some guy, not even the writer of a tech blog.
Let me teach you the meanings of a couple of words.
Opinion, like when two or more people disagree on the issues or on certain subjects, is not slanderous.
Slander is "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another" or "An abusive attack on a person's character or good name", or in a more clear fashion, "charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone".
None of what I did comes even close to the definition of slander. I didn't accuse the blogger with sleeping with an underage person, and I didn't accuse him of stealing from an elderly person down the street. Now, if I maliciously accused the blogger with doing any of those kind of things, just to damage his good name and his good reputation, then I could be accused of slander.
However, a difference of opinion, and a retort/response which accuses someone of not knowing what he's talking about, or just being plainly biased in one direction or another, cannot be called slander. It that kind of difference of opinion where to be classified as slander, then there could never be debates in congress, or in talk shows, and "civilized" discussion could never be allowed, and newspapers would never be allowed to have "commentary/opinion" pages.
It you still have a problem wrapping your head around what slander and opinions are, then you have much bigger problems than you can imagine.
You thrash the author for offering his opinion as fact and then proceed to do the exact same thing. Your prediction, however, is rude for the sake of being rude and offers no insight.
The difference being that, I didn't make any bold predictions about what technology would or wouldn't be in the future. My prediction was a generic one, with no specifics in the manner that the blogger used.
However, did you notice how you came around to using the correct wording for what I actually did? I offered my opinion regarding the contents of the blog post, and the blogger's opinion.
But then, you yourself end up indicting the blogger with the statement that the blogger "stated his opinions as fact". That is exactly what I was saying, and now you're saying it yourself. I was disagreeing with the predictions which were being presented as if they were facts. If you believe in any way that opinion should not be presented as facts, then you are admitting that I'm correct in my opinions regarding the blogger.
You spouted "personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as 'facts'... that's the truth."
When it comes to opinions, I don't try to present them as facts. However, opinions can be based on facts. What I said in my post was an opinion based on how the blogger presented his opinions, and I just merely disagreed with the blogger. Your original premise was that I was being "slanderous" to the blogger. But, you apparently don't even know the meaning of the word.
Why don't you throw a couple more of the word "and" in there and call me clueless.
Well, the "fact" is that you appear to be clueless about what constitutes slander and, you don't understand the difference between opinion and slander. For appearing to be so ignorant (and clueless), I sentence you to repeat grade school.
Now, going back to the "contents" of the blogger's piece, and going back to the contents of my original response, what part of those contents did you actually disagree with? Forgetting about your "opinion" that I was being "slanderous", what part of what I said is it that you disagree with? That is what you should have concentrated on in order to prove me wrong.

What you described in your dealing with Microsoft sounds exactly the way things would be with most other major tech companies, including Apple, Google, IBM, Dell, HP, you name it...
Now, your opinion is the same exact tripe we've been hearing for over 10 years from those that dislike or hate Microsoft, and they'd like nothing less than to have Microsoft close shop.
But, they're still here, and they're actually growing in size and in the number of products and services which they offer, and in case you hadn't noticed, they're very far from closing shop with all the profits they've been making, including with the huge sales they've had from their latest products, such as XBox/Kinect and Windows 7, and their Office suite, and others. Their Windows mobile platform is just getting started and it looks like it's going to be very successful with Nokia jumping on board.
All in all, it sounds like you're very far from the reality concerning Microsoft. And, hey, I don't even own their stock. I just like looking at the reality of things.

I'm no MS fan-boy but neither do I demonize the company. My opinion is based on what MS "could" do based on their technologies and their past performance as a company. Try to keep to the discussion instead of making personal comments about the posters.

So you are familiar with Linux? Why would you ever question it's power? Linux can do anything and be anything. It is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. PFM sir. It's PFM.
They could add all the functionality of Ubuntu and still call it "Android". It's just a name.

.. various computing sub-techs have a great ability to converge into where leading platform in that field are going at. In 1987 you'd laugh off anyone saying that in 10 years IBM PC compatibles will be mainstream home computers and gaming platforms -- both if you were just user observant of where technology was, or if you were tech savvy enough to compare benefits of AmigaOS over DOS for gaming etc. But it's exactly what happened.
Likewise, but on a different note, in 1992 you'd never assume Windows will be a serious contender to MacOS in fields of DTP and content authoring, but it now is (well at least Mac isn't dead like Amiga). In 1995 you'd never guess Linux will successfully compete with, let alone outnumber traditional Unix, Netware and then emerging Windows NT Server platforms... but it still happened.
And in all these fields coolest new developments easily switched to whatever platform took the lead (happening right now with servers and Linux). Linux Desktop is more/less an utopia, but Android as a leading consumer computing platform is a likely future (not the only likely future tho), and Apple, who are known for their good "feel" for where the industry is going at are already working on bringing the mobile to the desktop. Leading consumer computing platform, whatever that is in the future, will be the one that cool new games will be developed for. Cross platform dev tools (an emerging need with all those consoles around) will only bring that dream closer.

Your own worst enemy
Oooohhh, pity the little itty-bitty fella, trying to counter my points by trying to use my own statements against me. Looks like you've failed in everything else and now you're going to try to toss my own words back at me? Like I said, quit while you're behind, or you risk getting further behind.
"A debate is not about ;who can use the biggest insults. It's about the facts."
You find something wrong with that? I guess not, because, what you're trying to do is find where I contradict myself instead of retorting to my assertions and viewpoints and facts.
You are the mud slinger here.
Re-read my last post, where I mentioned that I too can be insulting at times, but, if you'd care to read carefully, I also stated that, I back up my rhetoric with the facts, while you haven't had a coherent point to make yet.
Nice semi-colon by the way.
What are you, five years old?
Look, I had noticed the semi-colon, but, I didn't think it worth it to go back to correct it, expecting that someone with any kind of intelligence would concentrate on the material in the post rather than the typo or extraneous character. Dwelling on the insignificant is a sign of a mind that still has a lot of growing up to do.
"You still don't have a point, and you never had one"
I said that, and you still don't. It might be best for you to go play with your toys.
Having a point and having a valid point are two different things.
Yep, but you haven't had any of those types yet.
I stated my point and you think it is invalid.
Look, even a child can have a point to make. Your points regarding the subject at hand have been insignificant, and poorly conceived at best, and very incoherent most times.
BTW, what have you contributed other than to say that I was being "slanderous" regarding the blogger? But, you couldn't come up with a good argument about how I was being slanderous. Defending yourself and the blogger is not proof of "slander".
This is where it gets really good:
Uh, oh! I'm scared now!
" Assumptions and predictions are often wrong in the tech sector, and with so much competition coming along and with so many advances from so many players, making predictions is very foolish."
What part of that statement do you find wrong?
Did you fail to read your previous sentance?
Nice typo, btw. See? I wasn't planning on attacking your typo, but, I threw it in just to show that, mistakes in typing can be overlooked and that, it's the material/contents that matter in a discussion. It's okay to go back and correct typos, but, it should not become part of the discussion. Just a lesson in common sense. Now, if it were a recurring set of typos and misspellings, then I could see someone pointing it out so that the author could try to correct his errors or his ways.
Let's look at it.
Uh, oh! I'm afraid to look...
"I stand by that statement."
I stand by all my statements.
and if we look at the statment you stand by:
Sometimes, I sit by my statements. And, sometimes a lay down by my statements. It depends on how comfortable I want to be when I post or write anything.
"In about one or two years..."
The suspense builds...
Isn't this a prediction? Isn't that "...wrong in the tech sector..." and "...very foolish." ?
You lack a lot of common sense.
It's not a specific prediction. I'm not predicting that a specific product or a specific corporation will be triumphant. It's a recognition of the fact that, in the tech sector, there is too much volatility, and when it comes to predictions for any one product or any one company, people have been very wrong in the past. There are people who make predictions in an attempt to steer a market in the direction they hope or wish, and they often turn out wrong, simply because, the market, aka: the consumers, aren't buying their silliness.
Now you will most likely say that I am being incoherent
Well, when a person lacks common sense, he tends to be incoherent. If you would look in the mirror, you should be able to recognize the person I'm talking about.
because you are unable to see your own reflection in the mirror.
When I look in the mirror, I see someone who is able to combat silliness and ignorance and liars and incoherence. I have been known to be wrong, in fact, more than I would wish, but, when it comes to you and your defense of yourself and the blogger, I feel very confident that, I have the truth and logic on my side.
Perhaps I shouldn't use metaphors?
It's not a question of "perhaps", It's a question of "why bother?" when you're not good at all in using them logically. Figures of speech are best left to those with common sense, and you haven't demonstrated that you have any.
Is that too much for you?
That's so funny!
You're like a 5 year old trying to explain maturity and wisdom to a psychiatrist. You're way out of my league. (BTW, I'm not a psychiatrist. I felt I had to explain that to you because you aren't good at analogies)
P.S. They don't teach the definition of the word "Slander" in grade school. You could tell me to go back to law school except I have never been.
That is so dumb.
And, hey, I would never suggest that you go to law school, because, law school requires that someone have at least some common sense.
A 10 or 11 year old is capable of understanding the word "slander", and they're certainly capable of understanding that "false and hurtful and damaging accusations" are evil acts, and if they can understand that simple meaning, it's only a simple common sense step beyond to equate the simple definition with the word "slander".
Again, you demonstrate a huge lack of common sense.
If you did make it beyond grade school, then you went to the wrong schools. ;)

"A debate is not about ;who can use the biggest insults. It's about the facts."
You are the mud slinger here. Nice semi-colon by the way.
"You still don't have a point, and you never had one"
Having a point and having a valid point are two different things. I stated my point and you think it is invalid.
This is where it gets really good:
" Assumptions and predictions are often wrong in the tech sector, and with so much competition coming along and with so many advances from so many players, making predictions is very foolish."
Did you fail to read your previous sentance? Let's look at it.
"I stand by that statement."
and if we look at the statment you stand by:
"In about one or two years..."
Isn't this a prediction? Isn't that "...wrong in the tech sector..." and "...very foolish." ?
Now you will most likely say that I am being incoherent because you are unable to see your own reflection in the mirror. Perhaps I shouldn't use metaphors? Is that too much for you?
P.S. They don't teach the definition of the word "Slander" in grade school. You could tell me to go back to law school except I have never been.

I like to feel the grit in my teeth while I still have them
Well, congratulations ! Sounds like you found something useful to do with your life, cause, your posts regarding the topic and the author of the article, are senseless.
but the irony.
What the heck are you talking about? What irony? Just like the word slander, you don't even know what "irony" means.
flowing from @adornoe is so thick I am begining to think he is doing it on perpose.
What I do, is indeed, purposeful. But, not wasteful, like you seem to be doing with your rhetoric and defense of the "indefensible".
In his post "Oh, get over it. Why defend the indefensible?" he attempts to defend the indefensible and fails to get over it.
You are babbling and don't even understand what you're saying or trying to say. So,, explain that sentence of yours which seems to be very incoherent and very much rambling on with no particular direction. Get your thoughts together and then try your best; but, I'm pretty sure that, from what you've posted thus far, that you're just going to be as incoherent as ever.
Then he resorts to playground tactics and personally attacks me
You are the author of what you write, and I could go on and attack your statements and assertions, but, no statement ever comes out without an author, so, I go directly to the source, just like I did with the author of the blog, and now you.
only to follow that up with telling me to "...repeat grade school."
When I see a problem, I try to come up with a solution, and, the solution to your problem might be to "repeat grade school". There is a lot of common sense to be learned during the grade school years, and you seem to be lacking that, along with some of the basic meanings of some words.
He must be honest;
I call it as I see it, and I tell it like it is. I pull no punches. Sometimes, going along with foolishness encourages a lot more of that foolishness. You need to learn and heed that lesson.
you just can't make up stuff this dumb.
You call my statements dumb, but, you still haven't offered an informed and coherent argument against what I've said regarding the topic and the author of the article. Just calling me dumb or my statements dumb, isn't going to win you the argument. You have to do a lot better than that. A debate is not about ;who can use the biggest insults. It's about the facts.
What the author wrote was a lot of wishful thinking and a lot of misreporting. Not much in facts. You are doing the same and you don't really have an argument to back up the author's assertions. All that you have is a defensive posture to try to counter me through insults. Hey, I can be insulting too, but, at the same time, I try to back up my rhetoric with facts, and so far, you haven't done the same.
At the end he finally admits that he still doesn't understand what my original point was. Golden!
You still don't have a point, and you never had one.
Trying to defend a silly argument by the blogger is not a point. If you had a point in defending the blogger, you should have clarified or explained what the author was trying to say. Your argument against my posts were mostly a "defense" on behalf of the author, claiming that I was "slanderous", but, as I pointed out, you don't even know what the word means. Come up with a good argument to support the blogger and I'll re-examine and perhaps correct my opinion.
Ok, let me know if I am going too fast for you. I will speak more slowly if you like.
The problem is not that you might be "going too fast". Your problem is that, you have no clue about what you're talking about, and your incoherence would be the same whether you went slow or fast. The first step towards solving any problem, is recognizing that you do have a problem, and then you follow that up with possible solutions. Thus far, you're in denial about your problems.
The job of a tech blogger could depend on being in touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.
You have it wrong. It's not "could depend on being in touch"; it's "depends on being in touch". There should be no "could" in that sentence.
The blogger might be in touch with the tech sector, but, assumptions and wishful thinking and misreporting and omissions in reporting, are not part of reporting facts.
You stated: "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
I stand by that statement. Assumptions and predictions are often wrong in the tech sector, and with so much competition coming along and with so many advances from so many players, making predictions is very foolish. Now, if somebody has "inside" information from a manufacturer or a developer which is almost certain to change the field in one or two years, then, I wouldn't fault the blogger for posting his glowing predictions about a certain product or a certain company. But, that's not what the blogger did, was it?
I think that qualifies as "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another".
B.S.!
That statement of yours is so asinine. If a blogger cannot be challenged on what he "reports", then that blogger should not even be "reporting", and it doesn't matter if he's reporting facts or making predictions or making assumptions or blatantly lying. Even the president of the U.S. can be called a liar, and it wouldn't be slanderous.
Countering a prediction or assumptions is not damaging to anyone. Try to understand that once and for all!
That is all.
Heck no, that is not all!
You still need to go back to grade school, or at least to common sense school.
Here's a little bit of advice:
Quit while you're behind, or you risk getting further behind.
I hope by now we all understand what that is the definition of.
When you yourself don't understand the definition of the words you're trying to use, then you have no case to be trying to explain what the definition of anything is.
Now you can disagree with my opinion
Well, thank you. That is so kind of you to allow me to disagree with you. But, you would not allow me to disagree with the blogger. So, are the blogger's words more sacrosanct than yours?
but please don't take 5 pages to do so.
And now, you're going to be limiting my freedom of speech?
Look, I can keep it short and simple and accurate, and I can make it long and complicated and accurate. With some people, such as you, I try to get things crystal clear and with lengthy verbiage in order to try to make things so simple that even you can understand what I'm saying.

Intent is required for slander. Did the commenter purposefully post statements he knew to be false in order to defame the author? I'm thinking since the argument is over the future, that argument can't even be on the table.

Is that he hasn't been proven wrong yet (establishing slander). We could revisit this in 2 years to determine whether it was truly slander, but at the moment of statement, it was merely an arbitrary, albeit derogatory, opinion. What if the commenter is proven true in 2 years?
On that note, I don't think I'll be bored enough to check back in 2 years from now, but stranger things have happened ;)

but the irony flowing from @adornoe is so thick I am begining to think he is doing it on perpose. In his post "Oh, get over it. Why defend the indefensible?" he attempts to defend the indefensible and fails to get over it. Then he resorts to playground tactics and personally attacks me only to follow that up with telling me to "...repeat grade school." He must be honest; you just can't make up stuff this dumb.
At the end he finally admits that he still doesn't understand what my original point was. Golden!
Ok, let me know if I am going too fast for you. I will speak more slowly if you like.
The job of a tech blogger could depend on being in touch with the way things evolve in the tech world.
You stated: "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
I think that qualifies as "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another". That is all.
I hope by now we all understand what that is the definition of.
Now you can disagree with my opinion but please don't take 5 pages to do so.

Honestly, it just doesn't have that action packed appeal that I'm talking about that can only be brought about by heated forum discord, but your arguments are spot on and have greatly added to the entertainment. ;)

This is why I love the comments sections in Tech blogs. Whether it be a death match over which O.S. is superior, or simply over-analyzing comments, they are always so much more entertaining then the actual piece ;)
RAWR!!!

You issue an accusation, but fail to state where I "slandered" the blogger.
Look, the bloggers in this site are well-known to, occasionally, do a lot of bad reporting and to report their personal opinions and personal preferences and assumptions as "facts". That's not "slander", that's the truth.
Apparently, you're quite incapable of noticing that. (Is that now a "slander" against you). To some people, speaking the truth is "slanderous", because, they can't handle the truth.

Slander:
defamation in some transient form, as by spoken words, gestures, etc
defamation:
false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel;
I thought you were being rude and trying to mar the reputation of the origional poster, Mr. Jason Hiner.

from the blogger who, in fact, is the one that made "unsupported claims" about the future of computing.
There are far too many bloggers who are full of themselves, and who show too much favoritism for one company or the other. They oftentimes sound just like the fanbois for Apple or Microsoft or Google, and they forget that they're supposed to report rather than to try to steer or show favoritism.
However, I doubt Spitfire_Sysop meant his post as a reply to me.

And likely the target sentence was the outrageous unsupported claim "In about one or two years, the blog and the writer above, will have been proven to be completely out of touch with the way things evolve in the tech world."
But that kind of statements are par for the course in technology trendspotting, so it's not a biggie.

not a desktop OS. Google will try to sell it to you as a "Desktop OS" but you will be dependant upon SAS and on-line storage. From what I understand Chrome OS is just the Chrome browser and all apps are webapps. That is a far cry from being able to do the things that we both agree desktops are good for.
"Under the hood" they are both Linux. Not Chrome or Android. My point was that this makes the possiblities very open. Chrome doesn't have to be just a browser (Although it will be) and Android doesn't have to be "pond scum" (Although it might be).
So what is worse? an OS based on Java or an OS based on HTML? They will both need some back-end work to be functional.

"A rose by any other name" may smell as sweet, but pond scum will never smell sweet even if called a rose. Similarly Andriod is more than a name, its an OS designed for a specific job. Should it ever grow into a full blown desktop OS it would become too bloated to perform the job it was intended to do. ChromeOS is important for that very reason. They may want to market it as Android Desktop Edition or some such thing, but it will still not be Android under the hood.